Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Key concepts
2-4
Political parties
2
Interest groups
3
Social movements
3
David Easton’s political system model
4
Harold Lasswell’s policy cycle
4
Comparing the three modes of political participation
5-6
Strength and weaknesses of the three modes
of political participation
7-9
Conclusion
9-10
Bibliography
11
Introduction
This paper will answer exam task 2, which involves comparing at least two different modes of
political participation and discussing their strengths and weaknesses. The chosen modes of
political participation are political parties, social movements and interest groups. First of all it
is important to define what is meant when talking about a political party, a social movement
and an interest group. Then a comparison of the modes will be made. The first part of the
comparison will focus mainly on the structure, objectives, methods and the roles of the
political participation modes in the political system, which will be investigated by using
David Easton’s model of a political system. The second part of the comparison will look at
how the different modes have an influence in policy-making by using Harold Lasswell’s
policy cycle. Based on the comparison, the strength and weaknesses of the three modes will
then be discussed. The purpose of comparing the different modes and discussing the strength
1
and weaknesses of these is to uncover people’s ability to rule themselves through these three
different modes of political participation.
Key concepts
In this assignment the focus will be on political parties in democracies, as the given task
focuses on political participation in democracies. Robert Huckshorn’s definition of a political
party is useful to this paper, and even though it can be contested (Katz 2011, p. 220), it will be
sufficient for this task. Huckshorn saw political parties in democracies as autonomous groups
of citizens that wished to make nominations and contest election with the purpose of gaining
control over governmental power. This is to be done through capturing public offices and the
organization of government (Katz 2011, p. 220). Noting this, given Huckshorn’s definition,
political parties are within the formal institutions of the decision-making process.
Besides Huckshorn’s definition, another important thing should be taken into consideration
when defining a political party, which is the function of it. A political party has overall 4 sets
of functions: Coordination, contesting elections, recruitment and representation (Katz 2011, p.
223). Coordination happens at different levels and areas, one of them is coordination within
the government, where the parties lay the bridge between the legislative and executive branch,
and between different levels of government (Katz 2011, p. 224). Another coordination is
within the society, as the political parties try to organize the political activity of citizens. The
last coordination is that between government and society, which concerns linkage of the
population with the party in public offices (Katz 2011, p. 224). The second function was that
of contesting elections, where the parties provide candidates and develop policy programs for
the society. The third function is the ability to recruit the proper candidates for elections or for
appointed offices, but also to integrate new voters into the existing political system, whether
they are new because of age, immigration or so (Katz 2011, p. 224-225). The last function of
the parties is representation. Parties serve as agents on behalf of their voters. They act and
make decisions on behalf of them and for them. They also represent their members in the
sense that they to some extend share the same ideology and values (Katz 2011, p. 225).
2
Another way for the population to influence the political decision-making process is
embodied in interest groups. Interest groups can be defined as membership organizations that
do not participate in elections but appeal to government, when wanting to influence a given
case (Erne 2011, p. 261). More specifically interest groups are formally organized groups that
try to affect the legislative and executive branches of government (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011,
p. 333). The group can make binding decisions on behalf of their members with e.g.
politicians, which besides the membership is an indicator of the interest groups threat capacity
towards the policy-makers (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). There are overall three
approaches that tries to explain the role of interest organizations; Unitarist, pluralist and
corporatist tradition. To unitarists, interest groups pose a danger to democracy. They fear that
too particular interests will cause the politics to be less representative of the general will of
the population (Erne 2011, p. 265). The pluralist approach shares the complete opposite
opinion of this. It sees interest groups as a source of liberty, but emphasizes the importance of
all people having the same opportunities of association and that interest associations are
distributed equally so that all parts of the political spectrum is represented (Erne 2011, p.
265). According to neo-corporatists, interest groups cannot be avoided in the political process.
This being said, they fear that free competition between the different groups will lead to the
strongest winning over the weakest. Because of this neo-corporatist are in favor of regulating
so that there is a balance between different social interests (Erne 2011, p. 265).
The third and last way of political participation that this paper focuses on is through social
movements. A social movement consists of a group of people that have a common identity
and who share common beliefs and goals (Kriesi 2011, p. 293). They are facing a conflict,
which may be cultural or political, and their way of trying to solve this conflict is done by
engagement in non-institutionalized actions such as protest and information politics and
evoking the medias (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). Their focus is on drawing the
attention and support of the public in order to have an impact on the decision-making process
that is relevant to their cause (Kriesi 2011, p. 295). There is no formal membership, and the
organization structure is not emphasized (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333).
When comparing the different modes of political participation, David Easton’s political
system model will be used in order to find out where in the political system the different
modes of political participation are situated. The political system is seen as institutions and
3
agencies that have a decision-making function. The political system receives input of support
and demands from the environment around it, and then makes decisions that yield outputs
(Caramani 2011, p. 10).
After having made it clear where in the political system, the different modes occur, a
comparison of the influence of policy making will be made by using Lasswell’s policy cycle.
The policy cycle consists of 5 elements: Agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption,
implementation and evaluation. In this assignment the focus will be on the three first
elements, as they are the elements that are relevant for the making of policies. The agenda
setting element is the ability to identify a societal problem that requires the state to intervene
(Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 377). The four agenda setters are public officials, bureaucracy,
mass media and interest groups (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 377). The next element is policy
formulation, which is about defining, discussing, accepting or rejecting suggestions dealing
with the problem, and occurs in government bureaucracies, interest groups, legislative rooms
etc. (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378). The last step, which will be focused on is policy
adoption, which is determined by government and its institutions (Knill and Tosun 2011, p.
378).
Comparing the three modes of political participation
Having defined the key concepts, the three different modes of political participation will now
be compared. When comparing, this analysis will go through the structure, objectives and
methods of the political participation modes. Then it will look at the roles of the different
modes in the political system and to what extend they influence policy-making.
Political parties constitute the legislative and the executive branch of government (Katz 2011,
p. 224). They are therefore the central actors regarding political decision-making processes
concerning the society, which is according, to Easton’s political system model, characterized
as part of the political system (Caramani 2011, p. 10). Coordination, contesting election,
recruitment and representation is the functions of political parties, but besides this, political
parties must decide what they feel about many areas in the society such as environment,
foreign policy etc. Like political parties, interest groups are formally organized groups, but an
4
interest group, is only interested in a particular cause e.g. unions fight for workers or
environmental groups wanting to protect the environment (Erne 2011, p. 261). The outcome,
which political parties yield therefore concerns a larger area of topics in he society than that
of interest groups.
In addition to that, the methods which political parties and interest groups use in order to
achieve their goals differ from each other. Political parties try to reach their objectives by
taking part in elections with the purpose of gaining control over governmental power (Katz
2011, p. 220). Interest groups on the other hand, do not contest elections. They keep out from
the political arena in the sense that they are not a direct part of parliaments. In Easton’s model
they are in the environment that surrounds the political system, and which contributes with
inputs in form of e.g. demands. Although not being a part of parliament, they have a
bargaining power in that sense, that they have formal members and the ability to make
binding decisions on behalf of them (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). Being aware of this
power, interest groups try to affect the political decision-making processes, through
influencing these legislative and executive branches of government (Kitschelt and Rehm
2011, p. 333).
Moving on to the next mode of political participation, we have social movements. Political
parties and social movements first of all differ from each other when looking at the structure,
which these two modes of political participation have. As we saw when comparing political
parties to interest groups, political parties are formally organized, whereas social movements
are loosely organized. There is no actor that represents the movement as a whole; instead the
movement consists of multiple individuals who are not formal members (Kriesi 2011, p. 294).
The objectives of the two modes are also different. As mentioned earlier political parties seek
to contest election with the purpose of gaining control over governmental power (Katz 2011,
p. 220). Social movements on the other hand encounter a conflict, which they try to solve by
non-institutional approaches (Kriesi 2011, p. 294). Another important information is that
social movements, like interest groups, are in the environment surrounding the political
system, trying to affect the decision-making process, which is the function of political parties
(Caramani 2010, p. 10).
5
Having compared political parties with interest groups and social movements now makes it
possible to make the final comparison, which is between interest groups and social
movements. Regarding structure, interest groups and social movements differ from each other
in that way, that interest groups are organized bodies that can make decisions on behalf of
their members (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). Social movements on the other hand are
loosely organized. There is no actor that represents the movement as a whole, as it is the case
with interest groups (Kriesi 2011, p. 294). They consist of individuals and organized actors
who keep their independence while trying to achieve collective goods (Kriesi 2011, p. 294).
When looking at the methods of reaching goals, there is a clear distinction between social
movements and interest groups. Interest groups try to affect political decision-making through
influencing political parties that make up the legislative and executive branches of
government (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). In other words, the actions of an interest
organization are institutionalized. Social movements do not have the ability to access or
influence the decision-making processes directly by entering these arenas. Instead they try to
affect the decision-making by engaging in non-institutionalized actions such as protest and
information politics and evoking the medias (Kriesi 2011, p. 294).
Regarding the comparison of the influence on policy-making, which the three modes of
political participation have, we turn to Lasswell’s policy cycle. The first step is agenda
setting. Political parties can be agenda setters, if they are a part of the public officials (Knill
and Tosun 2011, p. 377). Interest groups can too be agenda setters, as their method of
reaching their objectives is through affecting the legislative and executive branches of
government (Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). This means that they have a very strong
position when it comes to setting the agenda or affecting it. Regarding social movements,
they cannot directly set the agenda, but as one of their methods of achieving their objectives is
by using the mass media, they can, through them, have an agenda setting role (Kriesi 2011, p.
294).
When reaching the second step, which is policy formulation, the strength and weaknesses of
the three modes of political participation becomes more noticeable. Political parties are first
6
of all to be mentioned, as they are important actors in this process (Knill and Tosun 2011, p.
378). They have the ability to define, discuss, accept and reject suggestions dealing with the
problem (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378). Interests groups also play an important role, as they
work with the political parties, or in other words the legislative and executive branch, to
develop policy drafts (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378). Regarding social movements, they are
not directly a part of the policy formulation but rather indirectly, when creating a public
debate (Kriesi 2011, p. 295).
The last step on the policy cycle, which will be evaluated here, is the policy adoption. This
feature is one, which is dominated by government and its institutions (Knill and Tosun 2011,
p. 378), meaning that it is political parties that decides whether the new policy is to be or not
to be, which in Easton’s model would correspond to the decisions that yields output.
Strength and weaknesses of the three modes of political
participation
Having compared the three modes of political participation the differences and similarities
regarding their structure, method, objective and influence on policy-making is now clear. The
following section will focus on discussing the strength and weaknesses of the different modes
of political participation given the comparisons.
Going through Lasswell’s policy cycle the roles of the three political participation modes in
regards to influencing policy-making has been uncovered. All three modes are parts of the
agenda setting step, however, not all issues covered by the media reach the political agenda
(Knill and Tosun 2011 p. 378), which is a disadvantage to social movements in particular, as
that was one of their important ways of influencing the political agenda. When it came to
policy formulation, social movements where again not directly involved, which can indeed be
considered a weakness, as both political parties and interest groups were actively and directly
a part of it (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378). The policy adoption step, which was the last one
analyzed, was exclusively that of government institutions, whereby political parties are the
only mode of political participation which we have looked at, who is directly able to make
policy-decisions (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378).
7
It is clear that political parties have a strength in the sense that they are a directly part of all
the three steps in the policy making process, and as they are the ones that directly take the
decisions that yields policy-output, they have easier access to the political agenda and the
formulation of policies compared to interest groups and social movements. This being said,
interest organizations and social movements have the ability to affect the final decisions and
thereby influence the output, even though they are not able to directly make the decisions and
create the output themselves (Knill and Tosun 2011, p. 378), but they are, in that sense
weaker than political parties.
Another area where it would be relevant to uncover the strength and weaknesses of the
different modes of political participation is in regards to the role they play in people’s ability
to rule over themselves. When it comes to political parties the ability of the population to rule
themselves is a bit different. As direct democracy is close to be impossible in bigger
communities, the citizens serve as agents of the population, carrying out the acts which the
citizens neither has the training nor the time to do (Katz 2011, p. 225). Another remark on
political parties is that political parties have a long set of functions and roles. This could be
regarded as one of its strengths, as it enables this political participation mode to have an
influence on various areas of the society compared to the interest groups and social
movements (Katz 2011, p. 220). On the other hand this could too be regarded as one of its
weaknesses, as it then makes it difficult to maintain the representation of the voter to a full
extend, as it has to take a lot of areas within the political sphere into consideration.
It is also worth noticing the fact that especially social movements objectives and methods are
not that which concerns many political topics, but rather particular cases or conflicts
(Kitschelt and Rehm 2011, p. 333). Looking at it from one way, it may seem that social
movements are uninteresting and that people do not rule properly over themselves when
taking part in a social movement, as the time could have been spend on a political party, that
would cover more areas. Looking at it from another way, this feature can actually be defined
as an advantage, as focusing intensely on a particular interest or a particular conflict can result
in working with the subject more intensely, which means that something actually will be done
8
to trying to solve the conflict, as there are not a broad range of topics, which also needs to be
taken care of.
Regarding the strengths and weaknesses of interest groups, the answer very much differs
depending on which theory is used to understand the role of an interest group at a more
advanced level. According to unitarists each citizen should express his own opinion, and not
that of an interest group (Erne 2011, p. 262). The more interests of particular groups are
prevailed, the less is the likeliness of politics to represent the general will of the people (Erne
2011, p. 262), and interest groups thereby posses a threat to the democracy (Erne 2011, p.
265). Do interest group then have a weakness, as not representing the will of the people but
rather that of the interest group? If looked at a pluralist approach, it is quite on the contrary.
According to pluralists, interest organizations are not a threat to the sovereignty of the
democratic state, but a crucial source of reaching liberty (Erne 2011, p. 262). This assumption
on the other hand requires that all people have the same ability to associate and that interest
groups are distributed equally among the political sphere (Erne 2011, p. 265). As this is
unlikely to happen, the neo-corporatist approach suggests that a regulation should be made to
keep a balance of power between opposing social interest (Erne 2011, p. 265). Depending on
which theoretical approach one has, interest groups can be considered as strengthening the
ability of the population to rule themselves or just the opposite, which is weakening the
ability of the population to rule themselves.
Conclusion
Having compared political parties, interest groups and social movements, the similarities and
differences of these three modes of political participation are now clear. Political parties,
interest groups and social movements have different structures, objectives and methods.
Political parties are structured, they seek to win governmental power through election in order
to influence various parts of the political spheres. Interest groups are structured too, and the
ability of the associations to make decisions on behalf of the members that are binding, is
what constitutes its bargaining power towards e.g. political parties, in order to influence
policy-making so that the members interest are maintained the best way. Social movements
are loosely structured groups of people facing a particular conflict, which they try to solve by
9
evoking public attention among other thing. Regarding policy-making, political parties have a
major strength, as it is a directly part of all the three analyzed steps in Lasswell’s policymaking process. Interest groups and social movements should though not be regarded as
unimportant or irrelevant, but on the contrary, as important modes of political participation.
Even though they are weaker in the sense that they do not directly make the decisions and
create the policy-outputs, they can have an influence on the political parties making the
decisions, and thereby creating policy-outputs, because of their ability to affect these. The
strength and weaknesses of the different modes of political participation depends among
others, on which theoretic approach one uses, as what may seem as a strength can be seen as a
weakness too. This paper did not intend to appoint a mode of political participation, which
could be categorized as the best, but rather to discuss the different modes keeping in mind the
ability of the population to rule itself. Further investigation regarding political participation
and people’s ability to rule themselves could include other things that could have an impact
on the role of political parties, interest groups and social movements such as the judiciary
branch.
10
Bibliography
Erne, R. (2011) Interest associations, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics 2nd Edition,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, R., S. (2011) Political parties, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics 2nd Edition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kriesi, H. (2011) Social movements, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics 2nd Edition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitschelt, H. and Rehm, P. (2011) Political participation, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative
Politics 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Knill, C. and Tosun, J. (2011) Policy-making, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics 2nd
Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Caramani, D. (2011) Introduction to comparative politics, in Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative
Politics 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
11